Jen, Amy, and I (Steve Kaufman) distributed over 900 Would Jesus Eat
Meat Today? booklets to the mostly young attendees at Winter Jam in
Cleveland on January 29. Many people appreciated our presence and gladly
took the booklets, despite the frigid weather.

Can we have certainty? I think there are powerful empirical and
logical grounds for saying no. Empirically, psychologists have found
that unconscious and subconscious needs, desires, feelings, and thoughts
influence what we come to believe is true. How can we know whether our
convictions represent accurate interpretations of data or reflections of
unconscious biases? For example, among the many psychological studies
that demonstrate this point, participants heard a strong argument and a
weak argument both for and against a position that they held. When later
asked to recall the arguments made, overwhelmingly they remembered best
the strong argument for their previously held position and the weak
argument for the position with which they had disagreed.

The only way to have certainty is to have an objective
frame-of-reference. In other words, we need to be outside ourselves,
regarding ourselves objectively and dispassionately, unmoved by the
biases that color our convictions. Unfortunately, we can’t have such a
perspective. If we asked a person who said, “I know X is true,” the
person might offer evidence, such as a personal experience or the
experiences of others. However, we know that human perceptions are often
inaccurate, and human interpretations of experiences are notoriously
unreliable.

Another response to the question of how we know that X is true is to
say that we accept X as true on faith. People are free to believe
whatever they want, of course, but faith is hardly a solid ground for
claiming certainty. Indeed, to an outside observer, a person who uses
faith as a basis for claiming that something is true has not provided
compelling evidence. A person can hold any belief, however fantastic, on
the basis of faith.

I submit that certainty is a state of mind, and not necessarily a
state of knowledge. It can be disquieting to live with uncertainty,
particularly when it comes to the great existential questions mentioned
last week. However, I would rather have greater truth – even if part of
that truth is an understanding of the limits of human knowledge – than
greater certainty.

This paragraph: "Substitutionary atonement theory treats sin as a
legal problem – humanity’s offense against God – rather than as a social
problem. The theory does not regard sinfulness in terms of society’s
institutions or events of human history (other than original sin).
Consequently, the theory does not challenge unjust human institutions,
making it easier for Christians to countenance injustice" is completely
unjustified.

The basic premise of Christian (or Jewish living) is Love the Lord
thy God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. First
love God, then love everyone else. Obedience to God has always included
being fair and just and kind to others. The Bible is FILLED with
commands, e.g. the "10 commandments:" do not steal, commit adultery,
murder, honor your mother and your father, etc., etc., etc. to these
same commandments in the New Testament with further admonitions to not
even THINK about committing these crimes against others, and further
explanations about treating others with love (the greatest of these is
love"). Disobeying God (sin) includes hurting other people (your
"social" problem). My hurting others is not just a legal problem, it
demonstrates lack of love for God through obedience and lack of the love
of your neighbor, the second greatest commandment!

Also, as a conservative, vegetarian Christian I cannot condemn my
friends who eat meat (though I discourage it at every opportunity)
because it is clearly given the okay in the New Testament. I CAN,
however, argue vehemently that it was not always so, see: the Garden of
Eden. This state of ultimate peace and perfection prior to sin should be
our model to pursue (to be perfectly achieved in heaven). It was
perfect, so we should try to emulate it. One way is to not eat animals
or do harm to others. Just as when God allowed a writ of divorcement for
a time, they were told 'it was not always so," meaning the other way was
better. Eating meat was not always so, referring to a more perfect time
in the Garden of Eden, therefore it is a more perfect way to be.
Therefore to be a vegetarian is not a "weaker brother" in a sense
(though it's called that in the New Testament, but in reference to
eating meat given to idols), but actually a stronger brother who is
trying to behave more perfectly as man did before sin came to the Garden
of Eden and began death and pain and animals themselves becoming
carnivores. I, unfortunately have to feed my cats meat, but in the
Garden of Eden they were herbivores because all creatures were at peace.
That is the goal.

Lynda Austin

Reply

Ms. Austin makes the valid and important point that the Bible does
not treat sin only as a legal problem. I argued that substitutionary
atonement theory does treat sin in this way, and I find that
problematic.